Display posts from previous

Sort by

Why are you restricting the realm of evidence to card playing laws and their application?

I was just referring to Ross's prediction about what Franco would find, in the second half of 1439. The assumption is that Franco will look in the books of the lily for 1431-1434 and 1436-1439 next. Yes, you have many good cards exposed, Phaeded, not only in the books of the lily but elsewhere. I wasn't contesting that. It's just that there are quite a few years we know nothing about.

And while I am at it: I re-read your material about Bruni and prudence. Yes, Prudence and Fame could have been conflated into one card, in Florence. That would obviate the need to drop one of the virtues in order to get 14 cards, otherwise 2 imperatori + 6 petrarchans + 7 virtues= 15. That won't work in a Milan deck with 14 cards per suit, because of the known presence, in the BB, of the Wheel of Fortune, which I presume is not present in Florence, in the 14 card scenario. There would have to be another conflation, but I don't know what. Justice with Emperor or Angel?

I also re-read the 2004 piece by Dummett (viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1073#p16421) in which he postulates Milan 1420 for the invention of the tarot, earlier than he did in 1993, but it seems to me reasonable enough, even without evidence. He thinks the virtues would have been added later, as an addition after an 18 triumph deck had spread to other cities, one that people in other cities heard about but without knowing the order, maybe in 1430. Such a hypothesis would also fit my hypothesis that the cards went from 8 picture cards (possibly with 6 number cards) to 14 by adding the virtues.

Or it might be, it seems to me, that whoever decided the order in one city saw the allegory differently than in the original place, as to how the virtues fit in with the other cards, or were used to having them go in a particular sequence, or just misremembered. It is harder to fit the virtues into a story-line than it is the petrarchans. Dummett doesn't seem to have considered that there could have been as few as 14 or 16 triumphs, including all 7 virtues (with 1 or 2 perhaps conflated with other allegories), meaning that most of the others would have been petrarchans.

....
And while I am at it: I re-read your material about Bruni and prudence. Yes, Prudence and Fame could have been conflated into one card, in Florence. That would obviate the need to drop one of the virtues in order to get 14 cards, otherwise 2 imperatori + 6 petrarchans + 7 virtues= 15. That won't work in a Milan deck with 14 cards per suit, because of the known presence, in the BB, of the Wheel of Fortune, which I presume is not present in Florence, in the 14 card scenario. There would have to be another conflation, but I don't know what. Justice with Emperor or Angel?

I assume the Wheel of Fortune is present in the Florentine ur-Tarot because its so explicitly...Florentine, per Dante Paradiso 16:
76 'then to hear how families come to nothing
77 will not seem strange or difficult to grasp,
78 since even cities cease to be.
79 'All your concerns are mortal, even as are you,
80 but in some things that are more lasting
82 'And, as the turning of the lunar sphere covers
83 and endlessly uncovers the edges of the shore,
84 thus does Fortune deal with Florence. [Fiorenza la Fortuna]
85 'Then it should not seem strange or marvelous to you
86 to hear me talk of noble Florentines,
87 whose fame is buried in the depth of time. [fama nel tempo nascosa]
88 'I saw the Ughi, I saw the Catellini,
89 Filippi, Greci, Ormanni and Alberichi,
90 illustrious citizens already in decline,
91 'and I saw, as great as they were ancient,
92 dell'Arca alongside della Sannella,
93 and Soldanieri and Ardinghi and Bostichi.
etc. (the rise and fall of yet more families is recounted)

I assume the Florentine-Ur and the CY trumps are the same - 7 virtues and 7 cognates or antitypes = 14 cards (the middle row of 7 planets being added with the PMB); the CY 16 card suits mirroring the Marziano in that the court cards expanded to 6 persons with the four suits split into two families' coat of arms and 'courting' (consumated in the Love trump) just as Marziano's "Celestials" are courting (e.g., Apollo after Daphne, Jove after more women than Donald Trump, etc.). My trump schema again:

That's interesting. The Wheel could be the representative of Petrarch's Time, instead of the Old Man. I hadn't considered that. Then, if Prudence is conflated with Fame (or just dropped), you get 14 cards. A turning Wheel is a less obvious symbol of Time than the hourglass, but why not? Also, in Boccaccio's Amorosa Visione, Death comes right after the Wheel, as it does in the order (when there are only 14 cards). These references seem more obvious than Dante, in that you don't actually have to know anything except the names of the Petrarchan triumphs and their order, which could be conveyed orally ((but remembering that Time is out of place). I of course still think the CY had 16 triumphs, because of the relationship to Marziano, reinforced in the Beinecke's suit assignments and the 16 cards per suit, but your reconstruction would work for the BB, which only had 14 per suit. For the shorter deck (70 vs 80 cards), the CY's Old Man is eliminated as redundant, and Prudence is conflated with Fame or dropped. And the cards are the same in Florence and Milan, when there are 14 cards per suit. That's a good solution. So I am partly agreeing with you.

Added later: I see one problem. The Catania cards, which have the 1427 and 1428 dates on their recycled papers, include an Old Man but not a Wheel. There is also in the similar Charles VI an Old Man and not a Wheel. This is not conclusive, of course, because the Catania may well not be 1430s, but is a factor to be considered. If the Catania is 1430s, then either the Wheel would be absent in Florence early on or the Florentine deck would have had more than 14 triumphs.

mikeh wrote:The Wheel could be the representative of Petrarch's Time, instead of the Old Man.

Two different trumps, although the Wheel clearly suggest time ("I will reign – I reign - I reigned – I am without reign"). And I of course see Time-Saturn/"Hermit" added in the PMB.

Granted, there is no evidence for any number of trumps in Florence, c. 1440 or earlier, but there is contemporary, northern Italian evidence for 14: the 14 "figures" for which Bianca could make "festive" in Ferrara on 1/1/1441, a number seemingly confirmed in 1457 with the 70 card deck.

Where is there any circumstantial, contemporary evidence for 16 at this date? There is nothing to suggest that Marziano's deck was known outside Filippo Visconi's immediate circle, and given his hostility to Florence, I don't see him sitting down to a game of cards with Florence's ambassador.

The essential component of 14 is 7 , as in the 7 virtues depicted everywhere in Florence (and paralleled in the 7 day week, 7 sorrows of Mary, 7 planets, etc.), but 7 exempli or antitypes could also be shown below the Virtues (originally as trampled on antitype/vices, as on the Loggia dei Lanzi), suggesting a series of 14 subjects (e.g., Pesellino for exempli ). Thus perfectly natural for the virtues to be seized upon and pressed into service in Florence.

But 6 Petrarchan trumps...adulterated into something else with 16 subjects, precisely at the time when Petrarch's triumphs are depicted over and over, but only faithfully in terms of the text as only SIX? We are talking about one of the "three crowns" in his home town and freely amending one of his crowning and popular achievements. There simply isn't a jot of evidence for this, nor for Florence's interest in a series of 16 subjects in any pictorial medium (vs., the evidence of 7 virtues paired with 7 vices or exempli). The CY, OTOH, does suggest or at least allow for the possibility of all seven virtues (the base unit of the early trumps, IMO). 7 within 16 doesn't make any sense and there never was an 8th virtue in tarot, not even in the 97 card deck of Minchiate.

Phaeded wrote:Granted, there is no evidence for any number of trumps in Florence, c. 1440 or earlier, but there is contemporary, northern Italian evidence for 14: the 14 "figures" for which Bianca could make "festive" in Ferrara on 1/1/1441, a number seemingly confirmed in 1457 with the 70 card deck.

Not to forget the 14 trumps of the first painter of PMB.

Not to forget the analysis of Franco Pratesi to the Bologna document of 1477. 5/4 = 70/56

Not to forget the 5x14 deck of Master PW

Where is there any circumstantial, contemporary evidence for 16 at this date? There is nothing to suggest that Marziano's deck was known outside Filippo Visconi's immediate circle, and given his hostility to Florence, I don't see him sitting down to a game of cards with Florence's ambassador.

16 trumps in the Michelino deck.

16 reconstructed trumps of the 11 trumps of Cary-Yale.

16 trumps of the Charles VI (if one assumes, that this collection is complete).

There simply isn't a jot of evidence for this, nor for Florence's interest in a series of 16 subjects in any pictorial medium (vs., the evidence of 7 virtues paired with 7 vices or exempli).

Your "16 reconstructed trumps of the 11 trumps of Cary-Yale" is the very thing being disputed, so pressing it in as evidence is a circular argument. And there is no consensus for a 16 card CVI deck - the only Florentine item you listed - but you favor that far-fetched fringe conclusion because it supports your chess theory.

But let's cut to the chase - you and Mike have imagined a supplemented Petrarchan triumphs as the basis for a 16 trump ur-tarot, so if you can't provide a Florentine example of "a series of 16 subjects in any pictorial medium" then answer the Petrarch issue at hand (not necessarily limited to Florence):

But 6 Petrarchan trumps...adulterated into something else with 16 subjects, precisely at the time when Petrarch's triumphs are depicted over and over, but only faithfully in terms of the text as only SIX?

Your theory requires Petrarch's six triumphs to be depicted twice - as the textually faithful six triumphs, and a second time as a subset within an imaginary series of 16 subjects. But that's the problem, isn't it, there are numerous examples of Petrarch's six triumphs but ZERO examples of them being a subset of 16...because it only exists in your fanciful "reconstruction."

An example of the full extent of the use of Petrarch's trionfi in the quattrocento:

There simply isn't a jot of evidence for this, nor for Florence's interest in a series of 16 subjects in any pictorial medium (vs., the evidence of 7 virtues paired with 7 vices or exempli).

Your "16 reconstructed trumps of the 11 trumps of Cary-Yale" is the very thing being disputed, so pressing it in as evidence is a circular argument. And there is no consensus for a 16 card CVI deck - the only Florentine item you listed - but you favor that far-fetched fringe conclusion because it supports your chess theory.

If you accept 5x14-decks as a logical (and possibly probable) development state, then 5x16 opens quickly as a further possibility (the fundamental difference of Cary-Yale to PMB is, that Cary-Yale has 16 cards in their suits). Then there is the condition, that the same commissioner (F.M. Visconti) was responsible for 16 trumps in the Michelino deck.
All associations to Petrarca motifs and to Chess developed later (in the development of the research). The idea with chess (with Cary-Yale) existed already in 1989 and in 2003, but it had the character of a vague suspicion, not more. The full Chess Tarot idea could only develop, once it turned out, that Charles VI was (possibly) of Florence and possibly earlier than the suggested "c. 1470 in Ferrara". Diane O'Donovan brought up the idea, that the 16 trumps in the Charles might be a complete trump set, though her idea was related to an Islamic influence with astronomical symbols and 16 directions at the heaven (compass and the windrose).

Donovan's general ideas weren't accepted in our talking circle, but her idea with a complete 16-trumps-set in the Charles VI made sense, once the possibility was opened, that the Charles VI also belonged to the time, when 5x14 decks might have been an accepted model.
The Chess Tarot theory was born in winter 2007/2008, when Diane was already gone. She left some articles in the web, if you're interested.

But let's cut to the chase - you and Mike have imagined a supplemented Petrarchan triumphs as the basis for a 16 trump ur-tarot, so if you can't provide a Florentine example of "a series of 16 subjects in any pictorial medium" then answer the Petrarch issue at hand (not necessarily limited to Florence):

My idea of "Ur-Tarot" is a game, which was played with a common 4x13-deck. I recently presented it (again). I've no other deck, for which I would claim the terminus "Ur-Tarot". The Cary-Yale deck is just part of a possibly longer row of deck developments between 4x13 and 4x14+22 (with the later standard motifs).

But 6 Petrarchan trumps...adulterated into something else with 16 subjects, precisely at the time when Petrarch's triumphs are depicted over and over, but only faithfully in terms of the text as only SIX?

Your theory requires Petrarch's six triumphs to be depicted twice - as the textually faithful six triumphs, and a second time as a subset within an imaginary series of 16 subjects. But that's the problem, isn't it, there are numerous examples of Petrarch's six triumphs but ZERO examples of them being a subset of 16...because it only exists in your fanciful "reconstruction."

An example of the full extent of the use of Petrarch's trionfi in the quattrocento:

Petrarch's trionfi.jpg

I've recently engaged for the question, if the Justice in PMB meant fame (instead of Justice) ... perhaps you remember:

Franco Pratesi asked recently ..."Given the 6 triumphs of Petrarch, how could they be expanded up to the 22 ones of the tarot pack?"

A rather good question. The 14 trumps of the first painter of the PMB were once (at the start) sorted (according my opinion) ...

I don't say, that this is the ultimative explanation for Chess an Petrarca, though I think, that there were influences from both sides.

Somehow chess-interpretation and Petrarca-interpretation broke away with the time, that's rather obvious. We don't know, how the decks (which are known to us) relate to this perhaps slow process of "degeneration".

In the 14 trumps of PMB-1 (and also in Cary-Yale) we've a female rider - this fits with the idea Chastity (Petrarca-Trionfi). In Charles VI we've a male rider - that's already a "degeneration", away from the original context (if the Petrarca motifs were once completely part of the content).

Our material is clearly incomplete and our view possibly rather limited. So we cannot explain all and everything.

But that's the problem, isn't it, there are numerous examples of Petrarch's six triumphs but ZERO examples of them being a subset of 16...because it only exists in your fanciful "reconstruction."

Inventions can be credited with a little originality, I think. Novelty is part of the attraction, in the sense of new combinations of old ideas.

I might ask the same thing about your derivation from Dante. How many examples do you have of sets of precisely 14, or 21, Dante illustrations on the themes you propose, in any medium (but explicitly related to Dante)? However I do not think that in either case it is a relevant question.

I bought a copy of John Shephard's 1983 book The tarot trumps: Cosmos in Miniature; it sells for almost nothing these days. For the origin of the tarot, in chapter 5, "The Original Story", he took Moakley's 1956 article and 1966 revision as his inspiration, but with modifications. Here is his table, using the "Charles VI" order from Dummett, based on the little numbers on the cards, and the Sermones:
As you can see, he has made a few adjustments to Moakley.

I didn't think too much at first of associating the Bagat with a guide. Nothing like that is suggested in the early tarot Bagats. Love of riches seems a better fit (assuming he is a shell-game trickster or unauthorized seller of medicines of dubious value). In favor of the guide, Shephard points to the minchiate image. He holds that the minchiate preserves the best equivalent of what the early Florentine tarot would have looked like, better than the Charles VI itself (although of course there is no surviving Charles VI Bagat) The minchiate images survived for centuries without much change, he argues (in that way like the Bolognese, which the minchiate resembles; however I myself think that there is a better explanation, namely the power of the Church to enforce conformity, a power it did not have in the 15th century). And indeed the minchiate Bagat does seem like he could be a guide: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/56 ... c14a6d.jpg.

Shephard also holds that the tarot was invented around 1440. He doesn't actually say it was in Florence, just that the Florentine minchiate represents the early designs. and the Charles VI its order. He may well be right about the 1440 for Florence and the full 22 card sequence. And I can well believe that the minchiate images might for the most part reflect the oldest designs, especially in Florence.

In support of the 2 + 5 at the beginning he shows a "Triumph of Love" from 1488 Venice; the procession has a book-toting Popess, a bishop, and perhaps a pope (only a 3-tiered hat is visible) as well as a crowned figure, with Petrarch and his guide looking on (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... 1-love.jpg).

Here and in the next group, I wonder if Shephard, at least in his table, is taking Petrarch too literally. The Pope is not necessarily "captured" by love. Some were, and some simply loved God, who wants to be chosen rather than capturing anybody. And Petrarch has no chariot for Pudicitia, nor is she identified with Laura in that poem, nor is Pudicitia virtue in general. Unlike other type A cards, however, the minchiate does have a woman on the chariot. And if we look at the Charles VI chariot, what we see is indeed a very masculine representative of virtue triumphant.

I suggested in an earlier post that the Star is particularly apt for Fame, as it is the heavenly body mentioned specifically by Petrarch in his poem on that triumph. It seems to me, too, that the Tower card as the Tower of Babel is also in part apt for Worldly Fame, in that the Bible says it was being made, according to the builders to "make a name for ourselves" (Gen. 11:4, Douay-Rheims translation of Vulgate). It is aptly triumphed over by the Star of Bethlehem. a different kind of fame. The early tarot tower cards didn't show anyone dying, nor did they locate the tower in hell. The minchiate did, and for Shephard that is enough. The Bolognese card does show people losing their footing; perhaps they are in danger of dying.

So we might have 4 or 5 cards for Death, 1 or 2 for Fame, 2 for Time, and 2 for Eternity. The earlier Petrarchans get more cards because they deal with life, which is of more immediate relevance. since the intended audience is presumed living, and for which there is a vast store of images, Shephard says. The others are more abstract and just need a reminder of their presence, of relevance to the soul later on.

Shephard (p. 40) suggests, although with little conviction compared to the rest, that the PMB Hermit, Wheel, and Hanged Man took the place of the CY's three theological virtues, and that the 3 cardinal virtues were immediately before the Chariot card. That's an interesting thought. I can't see how it can be that simple, but that it conflicts with my own speculations is no reason to reject it out of hand. There might be some truth there somewhere. The 3nd section might get 7 cards that way, leaving Death with 2.

Shephard's insistence on looking at the minchiate imagery as that of the early tarot is certainly provocative. I do not know whether such a schema as his explains why the tarot has the images it does (as opposed to just 6 of them, at an earlier stage, with a different look). It might, as designers saw various ways of elaborating on the basic themes, and other personifications to add to each procession, besides the lead figure. If nothing else, it may explain at least how some people saw the tarot, more or less, at the time when illuminated manuscripts and cassoni of the 6 Petrarchan triumphs became popular (i.e. starting 1440 for manuscripts, c. 1445 for cassoni). And such a view of the tarot, promoted by its very name (triumphs), may explain why such illustrations became popular in the first place.

Here is all of Shephard, Chapter 5, which explains his table in more detail.

An order, based on the Milanese number row of Tarot.
It should be seen, that ...

1-2-3-4-5- 6 - 7 -8-9-10-11-12 - 13 - 14 - 15-16-17-18-19 - 20 - 21

... this order somehow operates with the 3x7 order, with some curiosity about the figure of Time

But he sees Justice as Chastity (I see the chariot with female rider) and he has no idea about Temperance as Fama.

We discussed at this time (November 21, 2011) the Fama in the Alciato row, and Alciato used Fama as Nr. 14 and further we had detected other "Fama Sol" inscriptions on the Belgian Tarot development (also at the Temperance card). Another background was our long discussion to Teofilo Folengo and his attempt to use 22 chapters in his Triperuno (possibly a hidden Tarot use).
We more or less lost this theme, cause around this time (November 2011) Franco Pratesi started his article series. W had other things to do.